No. 20/29.03.2010.

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT.

Heard Mr. Gupta Roy, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant.  None appeared on behalf of the Respondents though notices have been served in respect of some of the Respondents and for the rest notice was published in newspaper.

It appears that relevant facts include that the present Complainant entered into an Agreement on 14.01.1999 along with the Developer – O.Ps for purchase of an identified flat on the basis of development agreement executed by and between the landlords and the developers in the year 1996.  Though possession was delivered but the Deed of Conveyance was not being executed and registered and, therefore, the complaint was filed in the year 2005.  By the impugned order the direction was given on the O.Ps to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance and also to pay compensation as directed. 

Mr. Gupta Roy, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant – Developer contended in view of a subsequent alteration in the partnership firm which is carrying on the development work, the O.P. No. 1 is not entitled to deal with certain shares in the constructed building and Mr. Gupta Roy strongly relied on an order of injunction passed in civil proceeding wherein the aforesaid question is involved. 

On consideration of the facts as argued by Mr. Gupta Roy, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant we find that two incidents namely Agreement between Mr. Sri Debasish Mukherjee and Sri Ranjan Sengupta and an order of injunction in a Civil Court were the factors entitling the Appellant to an order in his favour.  But we find that none of the said incidents is relevant as both of them are of much subsequent dates.  Therefore, we are convinced that none of said two incidents has any impact in respect of the right of the present Complainant to get a Deed of Conveyance executed and registered by reason of the Agreement to purchase entered into long before the said alteration in the Partnership Firm and the said injunction order.  In the circumstance we find that the contentions of Mr. Gupta Roy, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant are not acceptable and there is no justification for interference with the impugned order.  We also record, as has been stated before the Bench during the hearing, that the Deed of Conveyance has already been executed and registered in compliance with the order of the Forum.

In view of the above circumstances the appeal is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.